Using Reference Values to Identify Profiles of Swallowing Impairment in a Case Series of Individuals With Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this article, we illustrate use of a systematic approach to rating videofluoroscopic swallowing studies (VFSS), the Analysis of Swallowing Physiology: Events, Kinematics and Timing (ASPEKT) method. The method is applied to a clinical case series of individuals with a history of traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) requiring surgical intervention using a posterior approach. Previous studies suggest that swallowing is highly variable in this population given heterogeneity in mechanisms, location and extent of injury, and in surgical management approaches. METHOD: The case series involved 6 individuals who were at least 1 month postsurgery for management of tSCI. Participants completed a VFSS using a standardized bolus protocol. Each VFSS was blindly rated in duplicate using the ASPEKT method and compared with published reference values. RESULTS: The analysis revealed considerable heterogeneity across this clinical sample. Penetration-aspiration scale scores of 3 or higher were not observed in this cohort. Of note, patterns of impairment did emerge, suggesting there are some commonalities across profiles in this population, including the presence of residue associated with poor pharyngeal constriction, reduced upper esophageal opening diameter, and short upper esophageal sphincter opening duration. CONCLUSIONS: Although the participants in this clinical sample shared a history of tSCI requiring surgical intervention using a posterior approach, there was great heterogeneity in swallowing profile. Using a systematic method to identify atypical swallowing parameters can guide clinical decision making for determining rehabilitative targets and measuring swallowing outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".